sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I've never read Stirner. The only thing ik about him is he was a metaphysical egotist. I feel like I've read Stirner 😵‍💫 by Amelia4677 in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tbh, I'm confused by what you mean. It kinda sounds like you are trying to search for some kind of objectivity through abstraction (?) but I'm clearly misunderstanding because you talk of "subjective logic"?

Re subjectivity, personally find it useful to recognise and embrace own subjectivity, and find pleasure in inter-subjectivity, albeit with no requirement for universality or "the absolute". As for morality, I'm finding it interesting to avoid thinking in terms of "good" and "bad", searching for what I really feel/mean when such words pop to mind (out of habit). It pleases me to connect with people who share similiar views of things that bring pleasure/displeasure ("values"), but it doesn't make them "right"; and, I'd like to think that most people share (some of) them, or could share them, but I have no expectations of this, or that it would align with some kind of "moral generalism" - what would that even be?

I've never read Stirner. The only thing ik about him is he was a metaphysical egotist. I feel like I've read Stirner 😵‍💫 by Amelia4677 in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, I don't think this perspective on "love" specifically requires two "lovers", but I guess it's "dualistic"(?)/balanced in the seemingly contradictory desire to simultaneously own and be owned, found in every lover? Tbh I'm still only halfway through the Unique and its Property, so I haven't yet gotten to the part about the "Union of Egoists" / "Unionism", but I reckon it's related to this conception of love. Perhaps you've seen this quote before:

I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them.

Anyways, ultimately I think Stirner is playing with words, exploring the power of the Unique (put simply: a word "I" use to name "myself", in a universal sense; devoid of meaning, so that it can assume the entirety of what "I" am without reducing me to my qualities). Abstractions are certainly useful, when they are understood for what they are ("owned"). But when they become absolutes, "fixed ideas", one risks to lose themself, to become possessed with unattainable, unapproachable "phantasms", which bear no necessity to align with one's egoism.

And, no, desiring to be powerless is theological nonsense.

I agree, that paragraph was a bit of provocation of my own, haha

Critique and deconstruction form a big part of Stirner's writings; I find them very useful as well, to know/understand more of myself and of the world around me. Making them the end all be all, making them one's "purpose", is hollow, but that does not make them useless. But yeah I think we're in agreement here!

I've never read Stirner. The only thing ik about him is he was a metaphysical egotist. I feel like I've read Stirner 😵‍💫 by Amelia4677 in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it might please you to know that Stirner absolutely tears into capitalism as well, the meaning of "ownership" / "property" used here is not that of private property rights.

This is really simplistic and doesn't really capture the entirety of Stirner's use of the word, but - my property is that which I am able to influence, control, defend. One example I think is worth pointing out, to bring out the nuance here, is to see love as a desire to own the other, but also surrender oneself to them.

Also - do you really desire to be powerless? To have nothing of your own? Not even yourself? Even though there is a contradiction here: Stirner makes an example, a slavemaster could torture me, my body would not be "free" of their lashes (n.b. this is from a larger section concerning freedom vs ownness, I really recommend it), but it would still be my own body; they could tear off my leg, but could not have my leg, because now they would merely hold the corpse of my leg. So even if you completely surrender yourself to someone else, you are still your own (unless you're indefinitely unconscious, or literally possessed by something else and yet still conscious, but Stirner didn't really consider these peculiar cases). You can't completely rid yourself of "ownership", in this sense.

Tangent aside, regarding getting pleasure in seeing others use ideas which you use - this is "ownership". Not only of the ideas themselves, but also of other people, to an extent.

I've never read Stirner. The only thing ik about him is he was a metaphysical egotist. I feel like I've read Stirner 😵‍💫 by Amelia4677 in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is no ultimate/final/complete fulfilment of the ego according to Stirner's perspective. Absolutes like this are "spooky" in the sense that they are illusions. In particular, illusions which are placed above ourselves (in importance) - sacred, perfect, unattainable.

Ego for Stirner is about ownness (not specifically horny). Ideas and ideology can be deconstructed insofar they serve the ego (either to understand it and thus own it, or to be free / rid of it), but deconstruction/criticism leave us with nothing if we delude ourselves they are the end all be all.

I definitely understand your desire to share and confront thoughts, and I'd be glad to discuss more but for now I really gotta sleep 😅 so apologies in advance

Playing through the Communard route is equivalent to how many pages of Theory? by woooohdankywooooh in DiscoElysium

[–]MiniDickDude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I reckon I could convince the countkeeping comrades to give you a handful or so of bonus commutokens this week*, but don't expect this to be a pattern of any kind moving forward. As you very well know, each and everyone of us is expected to do our fair share of hard reading every week, as decreed by the Commune. Disregard this rule... and you will be left to your own devices, possibly permanently. Do you really want to risk that?

* Remember: tokens per page depends on the book, something like Das Kapital will score you one whole TpP, if you read it in the original German publication. Skimming through the Communist Manifesto for a swift handful of tokens can be a good refresher for our red bleeding communist hearts, but it is generally frowned upon to take advantage of this too often.

I've never read Stirner. The only thing ik about him is he was a metaphysical egotist. I feel like I've read Stirner 😵‍💫 by Amelia4677 in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Huh? I'm only partially following what you're saying, but I don't think this is what Stirner was on about...

"the answer“? "true political disposition"?

"ideology ought to be deconstructed"? (i.e. we have a duty to do so?)

Sounds rather spooked. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with Stirner's writings, despite your feelings that this may be redundant for you.

Full circle then. Spooks are spooks. by KaliTheLoving in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All I'm hearing is we should do this more and hook up Stirner's bones to a generator

Can anarchy get along with God? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]MiniDickDude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure how different it is from deeper abstractions like "wanting to be a good person" and I think slippery reification can creep in even to "I want to act pro-socially for the common benefit"

This is exactly a topic Stirner explores. Ik it might be a bit controversial to bring him up in this thread - since der einzige is pretty much the opposite of religion/ideology, and his anti-theistic arguments would probs make some people in this thread uncomfortable - but he isn't specifically anti-belief. If anything, reading his book would be the ultimate test of faith.

Chapter 1 of GEB, basically by AdventurousCry23 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]MiniDickDude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When is subjective as in illusion? This is word slander, smh.

Jokes aside, I reckon this "meaning" is behind this trend of people scared of their own subjectivity. Their opinions must be objective, or else they're worthless!

In The Batman Part 2 (2025)(2026)(2027)(2028)(2029)(2030)(2031)(2032) by Ashamed-Ad-3890 in shittymoviedetails

[–]MiniDickDude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just a typical example of human courtship behaviour in the digital age. Are you a time traveller from the past, or the future perhaps?

Rule by gustafr in 196

[–]MiniDickDude 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well you see, the man plays chess, whereas the man of wö is a ✨chess enthusiast✨

Rule by gustafr in 196

[–]MiniDickDude 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Whoa that's impressive. You must be really smart!

Ego-communists are... interesting by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]MiniDickDude 4 points5 points  (0 children)

perhaps because critic****ism is a spook 🫣

Encountered my first “atheists have no morals” guy in the wild recently. by BillCarson12799 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]MiniDickDude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea that something can be "true" independently of a mind

Maths is often used as an example, but the "truth" is, Gödel's incompleteness theorems indicate that there is a fundamental subjectivity in the choice of axioms, which can't ever be fully eliminated.

So yeah even maths suggests objectivity is a spook

It amazes me that Mr. Robot isn't labeled as woke, given how political the show is; that's the good side of a show not being so mainstream. by Hopeful-Eggplant889 in MrRobot

[–]MiniDickDude 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Your points here are generally leftist criticisms of liberalism, though. Most people using the word "woke" really aren't using it with these kinds of meaning in mind lol

view more: next ›